1 in the United States District Court for the District Of

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION JONATHAN ANDERSON, on his own behalf, ) and as parent and next friend of his ) minor child, J.A., a student in Chesterfield ) County School District, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) NO. ________________________ ) CHESTERFIELD COUNTY SCHOOL ) DISTRICT; CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ) SCHOOL BOARD; JOHN WILLIAMS, ) in his official Capacity as Superintendent ) of the Chesterfield County School District; ) and LARRY STINSON, in his official capacity ) as Principal of New Heights Middle School, ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________ ) COMPLAINT Introduction 1. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits public schools from proselytizing students, sponsoring prayer, or otherwise promoting religion. When public school officials engage in these unconstitutional activities, they harm schoolchildren by coercing them into religious practice and subjecting them to unwelcome indoctrination and religious messages; they harm parents by usurping their right to control the religious upbringing of their children; and they harm families and the community as a whole by sending a divisive message of religious favoritism for those who adhere to school officials’ preferred faith. 1 2. In spite of these harms, and well-established law, on September 1, 2011, New Heights Middle School officials held an evangelical revival assembly to “save” students by encouraging them to accept Jesus Christ into their hearts. The school-day assembly featured a minister who delivered a sermon, a Christian rapper (known as “B-SHOC”), and church members who prayed with students. Students were urged to sign a pledge dedicating themselves to Christ. The event was remarkable because it showed how brazen school officials have become in flouting the law and infringing students’ and parents’ First Amendment rights. 3. But the B-SHOC event was not the first or last time that the Chesterfield County School District has violated the Establishment Clause. Rather, the District has a longstanding custom, policy, and practice of coercing and encouraging religious activities, as well as conveying religious messages, throughout District schools, including at New Heights Middle School. District officials have repeatedly incorporated prayer and proselytizing into various school-sponsored events, such as school-day assemblies, choral concerts, awards ceremonies, and football games. School officials also openly encourage students to attend religious events, such as student religious clubs, and participate in those activities themselves. In addition, religious iconography and messages adorn the main office, lobby, and hallways of New Heights Middle School and school officials even had a cross depicted in the eye of the school’s hawk mascot when it was recently painted on the gymnasium floor. 4. When Plaintiffs, Jonathan Anderson (“Father”) and his son J.A. (“Son”) (who attends New Heights Middle School)1 expressed concern that the practices did not comport with their non-Christian beliefs, one teacher told Son that he should not disclose the fact that he is a 1 Because Plaintiff is a minor, he is referred to in these proceedings only by his initials. 2 non-believer. And Defendant Larry Stinson, principal of New Heights, told Father that he needed to “get right with God.” 5. Plaintiffs believe that Son’s right to attend a public school should not be conditioned upon acceptance of unwelcome exposure to government-sponsored religious practices and messages. Father believes that religious education and instruction is a matter for parents, not public school officials. And he believes that neither he nor his son, nor anyone else, should be made to feel like outsiders in their own community merely because they do not subscribe to the particular religious beliefs and practices promoted by school officials. 6. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the Defendants’ policies and practices are unconstitutional because they are religiously coercive; endorse and promote religion; and have the purpose and effect of advancing religion. Plaintiffs further seek preliminary and permanent relief enjoining the School District and school officials from (1) participating in, organizing, promoting, advancing, aiding, endorsing, or causing prayer, religious devotionals, or proselytizing during class and school-sponsored events; (2) encouraging students to participate in religious events and activities, or otherwise promoting religious events and activities; (3) displaying religious iconography or messages in a manner that (a) does not have a non-religious, educational, curriculum-related purpose or (b) conveys official approval of its religious message or content; (4) permitting the distribution of Bibles or other religious literature on campus during the school day; (5) conveying messages endorsing religion; and (6) otherwise unconstitutionally endorsing religion or religiously coercing students or parents. Jurisdiction and Venue 7. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of civil rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 3 8. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) (civil rights). 9. This Court has the authority to grant declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 10. Venue is proper in this judicial district and division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) and the Local Civil Rules of the U.S District Court for the District of South Carolina. Plaintiffs and Defendants reside in this district and division, and the unlawful practices that give rise to the claims herein occurred within this district and division. Parties 11. Plaintiff J.A. is a minor child and student enrolled at New Heights Middle School in the Chesterfield County School District. He and his father, Jonathan Anderson, reside in the District. Father sues both on his own behalf, and as parent and next friend of Son. As a student at New Heights Middle School, Son is subject to the customs, policies, and practices of the Defendants. As his parent, Father also is subject to the customs, policies, and practices of the Defendants. Specifically, as set forth in greater detail below, Father and Son have been subjected to unwanted school-sponsored prayer and proselytizing at various school events. They also have been subjected to unwelcome religious messages and other promotion of religion by school officials. 12. Father and Son do not subscribe to Christian beliefs or any other specific religious doctrine. They are non-believers who live their lives in accordance with principles of free thought and reject the validity of all religious systems. They value their right to adopt no religious beliefs just as much as others surely value their right to follow a particular faith. Father and Son object to and are offended by the District’s practices because these practices promote 4 religious beliefs with which they do not agree. Further, Father and Son believe that, by promoting a particular religious viewpoint, the District’s practices are religiously divisive and exclusionary because not all students and families share the District’s preferred beliefs. They believe that these practices send the message that those students and families who practice officials’ preferred faith are favored by the District, while those who do not, such as Plaintiffs, are outsiders who are not entitled to the same rights as others. As a result, Plaintiffs feel like second-class citizens in the District and their community. 13. Son feels extremely uncomfortable and upset because he is routinely subjected to unwelcome religious messages and coerced both directly and indirectly to participate in religious activities that do not comport with his personal beliefs and conscience. Indeed, when he has stated his non-believer views or explained that he is not a Christian, he has faced disparagement, ridicule, and harassment from school officials and his classmates. Son believes that he should not be made to feel like an outcast at his own school by District officials who, through their promotion of religion generally and Christianity more specifically, repeatedly send the message that he is disfavored simply because he has exercised his constitutional right to adopt no faith at all. As a result, Son feels very unwelcome in school, the District, and the community at large. 14. Father also is uncomfortable with and upset by the prayers and proselytizing at school events, as well as the religious iconography posted throughout New Heights Middle School. As a parent, Father regularly visits the school and attends events there. He believes that he should not have to be subjected to unwelcome religious messages and exercise simply to remain an engaged and responsible parent. He also believes that the religious education a child receives, if any, is the province of parents and families, not public school officials. 5 15. In sum, by adopting a policy and practice of promoting religion at New Heights Middle School and other District schools, the District has harmed Son by, among other things, coercing him into state-sponsored religious exercise and repeatedly exposing him to unwelcome proselytizing and other religious messages. The District also has harmed Father by conditioning his ability to visit Son’s school and attend Son’s school events on his acceptance of prayer,

Load more